european organisation for the safety of … · dpi departure planning information message ... acars...
TRANSCRIPT
The information contained in this document is the property of the EUROCONTROL Agency; no part of it is to be reproduced in any form without the Agency's permission.
The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Agency.
EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE
Airport CDM Network Impact Assessment EEC Note No. 09-08
Project: Airport CDM
Public Issued: February 2009
EUROCONTROL
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Reference EEC Note/Report No. 09-08
Security Classification Unclassified
Originator:
Originator (Corporate Author) Name/Location:
Sponsor
Sponsor (Contract Authority) Name/Location
TITLE : Airport CDM Network Impact Assessment
Authors: Mihai-George Iagaru Eduardo Goni-Modrego Roger Lane Elisabeth Petit
Supervisor: Marc Dalichampt
Date
12/02/2009 Pages
34 Figures
- Tables
- Annexes
- References
-
Project
Airport CDM
Task no. sponsor
-
Period
-
Distribution Statement: (a) Controlled by:
(b) Distribution : Public Restricted Confidential
(c) Copy to NTIS:
Descriptors (keywords) :
Abstract :
The objective of this study is to assess the impact on the network if 42 airports were to implement Airport CDM, assuming the same level of benefits in terms of predictability that current CDM airport has achieved and provide the CFMU with accurate Target Take Off Times via DPI messages.
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.iv Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Airport CDM (Collaborative Decision Making) project aims to improve the overall efficiency of
operations at an airport, with a particular focus on the aircraft turn-round and pre-departure
sequencing process. One of the main outputs of the CDM process will be a very accurate Target
Take Off Time which will not only enhance ground planning but can be used to improve en route
planning as well as to more accurately plan the management of the whole of the European
airspace. Munich Airport is the first airport to be considered fully Airport CDM compliant and has
demonstrated local benefits such as a reduction in average taxi times and an improvement in
CFMU CTOT conformance.
The objective of this study is to assess the impact on the network if 42 airports were to implement
Airport CDM, assuming the same level of benefits that Munich Airport has achieved and provide
the CFMU with accurate Target Take Off Times via DPI messages.
Munich Airport currently has the most accurate take off estimate of the 42 airports considered and
this accuracy was used as the baseline for the other airports in order to evaluate the impact on
sector capacities within the European core area.
The study concluded that, following a wider implementation of Airport CDM, the benefits will be:
• It could be possible to increase sector capacity within the core area by up to 4%
which equates to between 1-2 aircraft per sector
• A room for improvement for an en-route delays of between 33%-50%.
• Some sectors which are expected to be saturated are not actually saturated.
Therefore if the declared capacities are maintained then some regulations may not
be required.
The positive results recorded in this study show that the expected benefits from the implementation
of Airport CDM could extend from the local airport environment to the network level, with emphasis
on the European core area. However, the achievement of these potential gains depends on a large
number of airports reaching the same level of Airport CDM implementation as Munich and
supplying data to the CFMU to the same level of accuracy.
EUROCONTROL
Page No. v Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................8
1.1. AIRPORT CDM BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 8
1.2. OBJECTIVE.................................................................................................................. 9
1.3. SCOPE......................................................................................................................... 9
2. APPROACH................................................................................................................10
2.1. GENERAL VIEW ........................................................................................................ 10
2.2. USED DATA AND METHODS.................................................................................... 10
2.3. TOOLS USED ............................................................................................................ 13
3. ANALYSIS OF MUNICH CHARACTERISTICS..........................................................14
4. SCENARIO DEFINITION ............................................................................................17
4.1. TRAFFIC GENERATION............................................................................................ 17
5. NETWORK IMPACT ANALISYS ................................................................................18
5.1. IMPACT OF COMPLEXITY ON CAPACITY ............................................................... 18 5.1.1. Results.......................................................................................................... 18
5.2. IMPACT OF PREDICTABILITY ON CAPACITY.......................................................... 19 5.2.1. Airport CDM benefit drivers ........................................................................... 19 5.2.2. Key elements ................................................................................................ 19 5.2.3. Used methodology ........................................................................................ 20 5.2.4. Results dissemination ................................................................................... 23
5.3. IMPACT OF AIRPORT CDM ON DELAYS ................................................................. 28
6. CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................30
7. NEXT STEPS ..............................................................................................................31
ANNEX A: COCA COMPLEXITY......................................................................................32
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.vi Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Core Area used in the Study ............................................................................................ 9
Figure 2: Gaussian distribution. General View .............................................................................. 11
Figure 3: July 21st......................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 4: July 22nd ....................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 5: July 23rd ........................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 6: Simulated CDM ATOT ................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7: Flight profile. Shift mecanism ......................................................................................... 17
Figure 8: Saturation. NEVAC snapshot ......................................................................................... 20
Figure 9: CDM-BASEvsCDM-FUT Saturations ............................................................................. 21
Figure 10: CDM-BASEvsCDM-FUT theoretical capacities reference............................................. 22
Figure 11: Increase declared capacity mechanism........................................................................ 22
Figure 13: Declared and Theoretical Capacity. Key Elements....................................................... 23
Figure 14: Sector saturations 23rd July........................................................................................ 24
Figure 15: Sector saturations 24th July ......................................................................................... 25
Figure 16: Sector saturations 25th July ......................................................................................... 25
Figure 17: Sector saturations 23, 24 and 25th July ....................................................................... 26
Figure 12: CDM-BASE vs CDM-FUT saturation of sectors............................................................ 27
Figure 18: Timeliness effect .......................................................................................................... 31
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: List of abbreviations .........................................................................................................vii
Table 2: Airports considered to be Airport CDM compliant ............................................................ 12
Table 3: Capacity Results ............................................................................................................. 26
Table 4: Delay Results Summary.................................................................................................. 29
REFERENCES
Airport CDM Implementation Manual
COCA User Manual
NEVAC User Manual(http://www.eurocontrol.int/nevac)
EUROCONTROL
Page No. vii Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
Table 1: List of abbreviations
A/C Aircraft
ATOT Actual Take Off Time
BIC Best In Class
CDM Collaborative Decision Making
CDM-BASE CDM BASE scenario with only one CDM compliant airport, Munich
CDM-FUT CDM FUTure scenario with 42 CDM compliant airports
CFMU Central Flow Management Unit
COCA COmplexity and CApacity analysis project
CTOT Calculated Take Off Time
DPI Departure Planning Information message
ETOT Estimated Take Off Time
NEVAC ATFCM fast time simulation platform
TSAT Target Start Approval Time
TTOT Target Take Off Time
VTT Variable Taxi Time
DEFINITION OF TERMS
ATOT (Actual Take Off Time): The time that an aircraft takes off from the runway. (Equivalent to ATC ATD–Actual Time of Departure, ACARS = OFF). CTOT (Calculated Take Off Time): A time calculated and issued by the Central Flow Management unit, as a result of tactical slot allocation, at which a flight is expected to become airborne. (ICAO Doc 7030/4 – EUR, Table 7) ETOT (Estimated Take Off Time): The estimated take off time taking into account the Estimated Off Block Time plus the estimated taxi-out time. TTOT (Target Take Off Time): The Target Take Off Time taking into account the Target Off Block Time or Target Start-up Time plus the estimated taxi-out time.
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.8 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. AIRPORT CDM BACKGROUND
The objective of the Airport CDM (Collaborative Decision Making) project is to improve the overall
efficiency of operations at an airport, with a particular focus on the aircraft turn-round procedures.
This is achieved by enhancing the decision-making process by the sharing of up-to-date relevant
information and by taking into account the preferences, available resources, and the requirements
of those who are involved at the airport (such as Aircraft Operators, Air Traffic Control, handling
agents, and the airport management). One of the main outputs of the CDM process will be a very
accurate Target Take Off Time (TTOT) which will not only enhance ground planning but can be
used to improve en route planning as well.
The Airport CDM project forms part of the work of the EATM Airport Operations Programme (APR)
and since 2001 EUROCONTROL has been actively working with many of the major European
Airports to develop and implement the Airport CDM concept.
Implementation of Airport CDM is now at different stages depending on the airports concerned,
however, in summer 2007 Munich Airport became the most advanced CDM airport when they
successfully started exchanging Departure Planning Information (DPI) messages with the CFMU.
These DPI messages contain the accurate TTOT which is based on the Target Start Up Time
(TSAT) and a Variable Taxi Time (VTT).
Munich Airport has demonstrated the local benefits of Airport CDM e.g. since Airport CDM was
introduced average taxi times have decreased, the partners use the TSAT to allocate ground
resources and CFMU CTOT conformance has improved.
These benefits and others were expected and it is foreseen that other airports implementing Airport
CDM will benefit in the same way. However, one of the aims of the Airport CDM project is to
supply the CFMU with accurate TTOTs in order that the CFMU can use them to more accurately
plan the management of the whole of the European airspace. The aim of this study is to try to
measure what the affect will be on the network if the main airports that currently experience the
most delay were to implement Airport CDM and provide the CFMU with accurate TTOTs via DPI
messages.
EUROCONTROL
Page No.9 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No. 09-08
1.2. OBJECTIVE
The objective of the study is an assessment of the impact in the en route declared capacity due to
the improvement in take off predictability and more accurate data available after implementing
Airport CDM in a relevant number of airports.
1.3. SCOPE
The baseline scenario was based on an ECAC wide assessment of the situation using the current
airport and en-route capacities and the whole ECAC current traffic. It was decided that the area
that would be most likely to show a benefit would be the core area inside the ECAC and this
included the busiest zones: Belgium (EB), Germany (ED), Maastricht (EDY), United Kingdom (EG),
Holland (EH), Luxemburg (ELL), Spain (LE), France (LF), Italy (LI), Austria (LO), Swiss (LS),
shown in the following figure.
Figure 1: Core Area used in the Study
Simulations were run with updated airport TTOTs taking into account the improvement provided by
a wider implementation of Airport CDM. It was assumed that the same Airport CDM benefits that
have been shown at Munich Airport would apply to other CDM airports in the future. This increased
predictability was used to derive:
• The variation in sector capacities resulting from the impact on the traffic structure.
• The potential gain in declared sector capacity.
The assessment covered one week of traffic (including a week end) and considered 42 relevant
airports.
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.10 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
2. APPROACH
2.1. GENERAL VIEW
Airport CDM has been fully implemented in the Munich Airport since summer 2007.
For the benefit of the study it was assumed that 42 (including Munich) of the most delay
constrained airports would implement Airport CDM in the near future
Two scenarios were defined:
• CDM-BASE was the baseline scenario where only 1 airport (Munich EDDM) was
considered as CDM compliant
• CDM-FUT is a hypothetical Future scenario “what could happen” in the same conditions as
CDM-BASE but in the case where 42 airports would be Airport CDM compliant
2.2. USED DATA AND METHODS
In order to perform a high quality study the most accurate data and validated methodologies and
tools were chosen. These are presented in the following
• CFMU data: ALL_FT files for 21-27.07.2007 AIRAC297
The traffic sample used was from the 21st-27th of July 2007, and the AIRAC cycle was AIRAC 297.
The main reasons for choosing this period as the reference one was, that at the time, the CDM
was implemented in Munich Airport and the time period was a normal summer one in terms of
traffic load. For the similar reasons, the same period has been chosen by several other projects in
establishing the baseline.
For the defined period, CFMU data in ALL_FT format was collected. ALL_FT is a CFMU data
format containing historical traffic recordings of all flights crossing the ECAC area. The following
modifications were made to the recordings,
• Modified CFMU data for the CDM-FUT scenario. See the chapter 4.1 for a complete
description of the CDM-FUT traffic generation.
• Take Off Time Deviation (TOT_Dev) is defined as the difference ATOT-ETOT or ATOT-
CTOT if CTOT is defined.
For the CDM project purposes, the relevant value to be studied is the TOT_Dev value.
The traffic related to Munich Airport was considered and the ATOT-ETOT deviation was evaluated
for both CDM Airports and non CDM Airports.
The Gauss distribution is the most suitable model for the above mentioned deviation.
EUROCONTROL
Page No.11 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No. 09-08
Figure 2: Gaussian distribution. General View
µ is the Gaussian distribution mean value
σ is the Gaussian distribution deviation
The meaning of these values is that about 68% of values drawn from a normal distribution are
within one standard deviation σ > 0 away from the mean µ; about 95% of the values are within two
standard deviations.
Two scenarios were defined: CDM-BASE and CDM-FUT
CDM-BASE scenario is the 2007 recorded situation. Only Munich Airport with Airport CDM fully
implemented.
CDM-FUT scenario is taking into account 42 Airports (see list below) as being fully Airport CDM
compliant like Munich is today.
In order to build the CDM-FUT scenario the Munich recorded distribution is applied for the ATOT-
ETOT value for all the listed airports.
The traffic departing from those 42 airports represents 41% of the total traffic in the whole ECAC
(including over-flights). Looking only to the core area it represents 51% of the traffic.
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.12 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
Table 2: Airports considered to be Airport CDM compliant
EBBR Brussels
EDDF Frankfurt
EDDH Hamburg
EDDL Dusseldorf
EDDM Munich
EFHK Helsinki
EGKK London Gatwick
EGLC London City
EGLL London Heathrow
EGSS London Stansted
EHAM Amsterdam Schiphol
EKCH Copenhagen Kastrup
ENGM Oslo Gardemoen
EPWA Warsaw / Okecie
ESSA Stockholm Arlanda
LEBL Barcelona
LEIB Ibiza
LEMD Madrid Barajas
LETO Madrid Torrejon
LEPA Palma de Mallorca
LFLB Chambery Aix bains
LFLP Annecy
LFMD Cannes Mandelieu
LFML Marseilles
LFMN Nice Cote Azur
LFPG Paris CDG
LFPO Paris Orly
LGAT Athens
LGAV Athens /Elftherios Venizelos
LGIR Nikos / Kazantzakis
LGRP Rhodes Diagoras
LIMC Milan Malpensa
LIML Milan Linate
LIPD Villafranca
LIRA Roma Ciampino
LIRF Roma Fiumicino
LKPR Prague Ruzyne
LOWW Vienna
LPPT Lisbon
LSGG Geneva
LSZH Zurich
LTAI Antalya
LTBA Istanbul Ataturk
EUROCONTROL
Page No.13 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No. 09-08
2.3. TOOLS USED
• NEVAC fast time simulator http://www.eurocontrol.int/nevac
NEVAC is an ATFCM fast time simulation platform developed by EUROCONTROL
Experimental Centre (EEC) and broadly adopted and used by the ATFCM community.
• COCA methodologies and tools. See chapter 5.1 for a complete COCA description.
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.14 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
3. ANALYSIS OF MUNICH CHARACTERISTICS
Munich Airport being the first CDM fully compliant Airport was considered to be the reference and
the other 42 airports in the CDM-FUT scenario were assumed to be performing in a similar manner
after CDM implementation.
Results for Munich airport are presented together with Paris CDG, Zurich and Brussels airports.
The three Airports listed above, other than Munich, have been chosen in a random manner but
they are considered as representative.
All Airports, other than Munich, have similar figures, the data from the three representative Airports
is listed below.
For each chosen Airport, the deviation and the mean value of the Gauss associated distribution are
listed.
Summary of the comparison:
Figure 3: July 21st
21.07.2007
Munich (EDDM)
Deviation 7,92
Mean 1,13
Paris CDG (LFPG)
Deviation 11,04
Mean 2,95
Zurich (LSZH)
Deviation 10,35
Mean 2,96
Brussels (EBBR)
Deviation 7,70
Mean 2,96
EUROCONTROL
Page No.15 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No. 09-08
Figure 4: July 22nd
Figure 5: July 23rd
23.07.2007
Munich (EDDM)
Deviation 7,1
Mean -0,1
Paris CDG (LFPG)
Deviation 10,5
Mean 4,3
Zurich (LSZH)
Deviation 10,7
Mean 2,9
Brussels (EBBR)
Deviation 9,2
Mean 2,8
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.16 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
Conclusions
Munich Airport:
• a mean value in the (-0.3;1) interval has been recorded
• a standard deviation of about 7 minutes
For all the other Airports:
• a mean value bigger than 2 has been observed
• the standard deviation is more than 10 minutes
EUROCONTROL
Page No.17 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No. 09-08
4. SCENARIO DEFINITION
4.1. TRAFFIC GENERATION
Munich CDM observed mean values and deviation values of the ATOT-ETOT (or CTOT if
defined) are applied for all flights taking off from a CDM-FUT airports. That means, for each of
these flights, a new random value is attached for the ATOT-ETOT in respect to the Munich
observed Gaussian distribution of the ATOT-ETOT.
According to the new ATOT-ETOT value, for each flight, the new ATOT value is computed
and the new 4D trajectory is shifted forward or backward in time with the ATOT-ETOT value.
In the picture below, the flight is departing from Manchester (EGCC) airport which is a
CDM-FUT airport. The new ATOT-ETOT value is “-2” and keeping a constant ETOT a new ATOT
is computed.
Figure 6: Simulated CDM ATOT
After the new ATOT computation, the whole 4D profile is shifted backward or forward as it
is figured in the picture below.
Figure 7: Flight profile. Shift mecanism
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.18 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
5. NETWORK IMPACT ANALISYS
5.1. IMPACT OF COMPLEXITY ON CAPACITY
For a more detailed COCA complexity approach, see Annex A: COCA Complexity
Following the Airport CDM implementation, a new traffic distribution is expected and due to that,
the sectors declared capacity should be impacted.
The Macroscopic Workload Formula (MWM) is used and it is defined as follows:
MWM = wAC * nAC + wLC * nLC + w CNF * nCNF
Where: AC - nominates routine task
LC - nominates level change monitoring task
CNF - nominates conflict monitoring task
nAC, nLC, nCNF - are the numbers of occurrences for each elementary task
wAC, wLC, wCNF - are times necessaries for each of the elementary tasks
5.1.1. Results
The aim of the complexity study is to identify potential changes, problems or gains related to
changes in complexity.
Since COCA for the Airport CDM complexity study has been performed on the ECAC wide level
results could be “diluted” taking into account the fact that the core area is the most related to the
CDM airports. Results could be refined in the next steps by performing a COCA complexity
analysis on the CDM core area level.
There are no major changes in terms of capacity gains due to complexity changes brought by the
Airport CDM project. The overall gain due to capacity changes is about 0.3% which is in the results
tolerance window. The next steps may highlight some changes by reducing the reference area to
the European core area.
EUROCONTROL
Page No.19 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No. 09-08
5.2. IMPACT OF PREDICTABILITY ON CAPACITY
5.2.1. Airport CDM benefit drivers
The benefits drivers from Airport CDM can be categorised in two main types:
• Improvement in the process efficiency due to Airport CDM leading to timely and accurate
information. The expected result is an improvement in punctuality.
• Improvement in predictability due to the Airport CDM procedures based on the timely
sharing and updating of information. The expected result is an improvement in the following
processes downstream.
The first benefit (process efficiency) will improve the capability to avoid delays due to the
processes itself and to reduce or eliminate initial delays (i.e. reactionary delays), and will improve
the resources allocation process. This benefit mechanism is related to the resources management
and decision making in real time. This effect is not addressed in the study.
The second benefit (predictability) will improve the resources planning and the confidence on the
planning evolution during the execution phase.
The simulation is based on the last TTOT provided by Airport CDM, but timely information is not
considered in this analysis. The possibilities on reorganisation of the airspace or the staff are also
not addressed in the study; it addressed the predictability benefit mechanism only. Therefore the
results presented herein have to be considered only as part of the potential Airport CDM benefits.
5.2.2. Key elements
The key elements influencing the capacity are:
• Maximum capacity (theoretical): maximum number of flights that can be handled in a sector
at the same time under normal conditions of work.
• Capacity overload uncertainty: the actual traffic flown differs from the planned movements.
The uncertainty between the planned traffic and the actual traffic introduces uncertainty in
the planning phase, directly affecting the efficiency.
• Declared capacity: capacity considered in the planning phase.
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.20 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
5.2.3. Used methodology
In order to highlight the effect of the better predictability on the airspace occupancy the saturation
of sectors was considered.
Sector saturation is the ratio demand over capacity
CapacityDemandS =
The benefits in terms of capacity from the Airport CDM predictability will be related to the
congested sectors (regulated and close to be regulated). Therefore, only sectors having the
saturation bigger than 0.9 have been considered. The network effect is to be taken into account for
both scenarios; that means the congested sectors map should be analysed.
The traffic taken into account considers all the flights in the ECAC area, including over-flights,
departing or not from this area. The sectors considered for the saturation analysis correspond to
the core area described in point 1.3.
The picture bellow illustrates the results from the simulation, a screenshot of the NEVAC fast time
simulator:
Figure 8: Saturation. NEVAC snapshot
As previously stated, the assessment is based on the comparison between the current situation
and the simulated situation after implementing Airport CDM at 42 relevant airports.
EUROCONTROL
Page No.21 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No. 09-08
Previously in this study, it was noted that there is a significant improvement in the TTOT
predictability after implementing Airport CDM. The focus now is on how a better TTOT can improve
the en-route predictability.
The first step is establishing the reference for the theoretical capacity. The assumption is to define
R% as sector overload risk.
By obtaining the R% percentile from the actual traffic load for the congested sectors the reference
for the theoretical capacity was established, as shown for the CDM-BASE in Figure 9 and Figure
10. Those figures represent the saturation for both the actual traffic for CDM-BASE and the
simulated traffic for CDM-FUT. The X axis represents the traffic load and the Y axis represents the
probability of saturation.
From the simulation data for the 42 CDM airports, we can obtain the equivalent figure and compare
the overcapacity risk S% referred to the theoretical capacity reference established in the paragraph
above. S is smaller than R due to the improved predictability (standard deviation), in other words
there is less risk for capacity overload.
Figure 9: CDM-BASEvsCDM-FUT Saturations
If after implementing CDM-FUT the declared capacity for the sectors is maintained, the effect
should be that fewer sectors are saturated and results in less sectors needing protection. In order
to use the “new” available capacity the following approach is proposed to reduce the used declared
capacity buffers, based on maintaining the figure for the sectors overload risk.
The benefit in terms of declared capacity could be obtained by maintaining the capacity overload
risk R% for the new 42 airports situation, taking into account the same current theoretical capacity.
Then the declared capacity could be increased by X as much as matching the R% risk. The Figure
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.22 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
10 and Figure 11 show this process.
Figure 10: CDM-BASEvsCDM-FUT theoretical capacities reference
Figure 11: Increase declared capacity mechanism
In Figure 11, A and B represent the capacity buffers for CDM-BASE and CDM-FUT respectively.
The difference between A and B is the potential declared capacity increase.
EUROCONTROL
Page No.23 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No. 09-08
5.2.4. Results dissemination
The analysis is based on the traffic flown in the congested traffic volumes, for two scenarios: real
data from the days 23rd, 24th and 25 of July 2007 and simulated data including 42 CDM airports
for the same period.
All the calculations have been performed directly on the data obtained from the simulation (without
any statistical curve approximation).
The following graph has been obtained from the simulation results on sectors saturation. It shows
the three days aggregated data for those traffic volumes where saturation (traffic flown referred to
the declared capacity) is greater than 90%. All the traffic volumes also have been aggregated in
order to obtain the required amount of data for a statistical analysis. The X axis represents the
traffic load referred to the declared capacity (i.e. 1,2 means that the traffic flown exceeds the
declared capacity by 20%). The Y axis represents the probability of saturation.
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0,4
0,45
0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,6
Saturation
Pro
bab
ility
CDM-FUT CDM-BASE
DeclaredCapacity
TheoreticalCapacity
Risk of Overload
Figure 12: Declared and Theoretical Capacity. Key Elements
Figure 12: Declared and Theoretical Capacity. Key Elements, shows how the results from 42 CDM
airports are less spread out compared to the current situation. Also it can be noted that the results
for both cases are concentrated around the declared capacity (100), but slightly displaced to the
left side for the 42 CDM airports. This effect is relevant for the standard deviation value but not for
the average in this study due to the data considered in the analysis is the last departing time
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.24 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
recorded from the airport.
The maximum traffic acceptable corresponds to the theoretical capacity, the probability for the
events above this reference represents the risk to be overloaded.
If we assume the reference for theoretical capacity as the one providing a risk to be overloaded by
5%, it is possible to compare the two figures before and after 42 CDM airports in terms of
maintaining the same risk as nowadays. Current figures show the 5% overload risk approximately
corresponds to a declared capacity of 70% of the theoretical capacity.
After implementing CDM at 42 airports, if the same declared capacity and theoretical capacity are
maintained, the risk of overload is 4%. The proposed approach is to increase the declared capacity
while maintaining the theoretical capacity to get the same risk to be overloaded considered as
nowadays (5%). The results from this process are shown in the following figures.
Simulation results for sectors saturation:
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0,4
0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,6
Saturation
Pro
bab
ility
CDM-FUT CDM-BASE
Figure 13: Sector saturations 23rd July
EUROCONTROL
Page No.25 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No. 09-08
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0,4
0,45
0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,6
Saturation
Pro
bab
ility
CDM-FUT CDM-BASE
Figure 14: Sector saturations 24th July
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0,4
0,45
0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,6
Saturation
Pro
bab
ility
CDM-FUT CDM-BASE
Figure 15: Sector saturations 25th July
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.26 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220
Saturation
Pro
bab
ility
CDM-FUT CDM-BASE
Figure 16: Sector saturations 23, 24 and 25th July
The results related to the declared capacities are included in the following table; X represents the
potential increase in declared capacity according to Figure 11:
Day A(%) B(%) X
23 1.56 1.51 5%
24 1.56 1.50 6%
25 1.52 1.50 2%
23, 24, 25 1.55 1.51 4%
Table 3: Capacity Results
The following result has been obtained from the traffic saturation:
Focused on the core area for CDM-BASE, 515 sectors present saturation greater than 0.9, and for
CDM-FUT 351 sectors present saturation greater than 0.9. The Figure below shows the
differences between CDM-BASE and CDM-FUT saturation maps in Germany only.
EUROCONTROL
Page No.27 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No. 09-08
Figure 17: CDM-BASE vs CDM-FUT saturation of sectors
- In CDM-BASE the traffic shown (in blue) all sectors whose traffic load is 90% or greater than
sector declared capacity.
- In CDM-FUT, an improved traffic forecast due to the improved predictability obtained with
extended Airport CDM, shows how some of the initially overloaded sectors will actually operate
under their maximum declared capacity and need no protection.
- In conclusion, a further benefit can be obtained by reducing the size of the protection capacity
buffer of sectors due to the improved predictability. Therefore, the declared capacity could increase
becoming closer to the theoretical maximum capacity.
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.28 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
5.3. IMPACT OF AIRPORT CDM ON DELAYS
In the same context that gains in terms of capacities having been highlighted in the previous
chapters, gains are foreseen in terms of reduction in ATC delays.
Delays have an impact on the airspace users and they have been evaluated by means of NEVAC
fast time simulations. CASA is the algorithm implemented by the NEVAC simulator.
For each saturated sector, a 4% increase of the declared capacities has been applied, as it was
shown in the previous chapter; see 5.2.4
The current performance target of maximum 1 minute en-route maximum delay per flight for the
summer season was kept.
For both CDM-BASE and CDM-FUT scenarios, the environment used was the real one provided
by the CFMU. Opening Scheme and Regulation Plan are included in the environment provided and
they are the same for both scenarios.
En route delays and airport delays are the components of the computed ATC delays. For each
flight, used CASA algorithm attaches the computed delay to the most penalizing regulation.
The days of 21st and 22nd are not usable due to some inconsistencies in the provided Opening
Scheme that have been highlighted on the fast time simulations time. Therefore, the delay results
analysis is based on the remaining days.
A significant delays reduction for both En Route and Airport delays is observed; see Table 4: Delay Results
Summary
EUROCONTROL
Page No.29 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No. 09-08
CDM-BASE CDM-FUT
Route% AP% En Rt Delay
AP
Delay Delay/Flt Delay/Flt
AP
Delay En Rt Delay AP% Route%
21.07 74% 26% 2,0 0,7 2,7
22.07 68% 32% 1,7 0,8 2,5 1,5 0,3 1,2 20% 80%
23.07 35% 65% 0,6 1,1 1,7 0,8 0,5 0,3 61% 39%
24.07 50% 50% 0,8 0,8 1,6 0,7 0,2 0,5 31% 69%
25.07 72% 28% 0,9 0,3 1,2 0,7 0,1 0,6 11% 89%
26.07 58% 42% 0,8 0,6 1,4 0,6 0,2 0,4 28% 72%
27.07 51% 49% 0,9 0,8 1,7 0,9 0,4 0,5 49% 51%
Table 4: Delay Results Summary
The CDM Network Impact Assessment study focused on en-route delays.
Conclusions on CDM impact on en-route delays: Having a look on the above Table 4: Delay
Results Summary, (the mean CDM-BASE delay=0.8 and mean CDM-FUT delay = 0.46) it can be
concluded that there is a significant reduction in terms of delays due to Airport CDM
implementation.
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.30 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
6. CONCLUSIONS
As a resume of the results presented above, implementing Airport CDM would bring the following
benefits:
• It has been clearly noted that take off predictability has an impact on sector capacity.
• If Airport CDM was implemented in the main 42 delaying European airports with the
same result in performance as Munich Airport has experienced, then it could allow an
increase in sectors declared capacity by up to 4%; that corresponds to an increase of
1 or 2 extra aircraft per sector.
• The complexity analysis shows that the improved TTOT predictability is not expected
to affect the theoretical capacity.
• Following the TTOT_Deviation analysis, it was highlighted Munich airport is the Best
In Class (BIC) airport by taking into account the fidelity to the ETOT.
• Analysis of the impact of Airport CDM on delays has highlighted a room for
improvement of 33%-50% (mean CDM-BASE delay=0.8 and mean CDM-FUT delay
= 0.46). Such a gain in terms of delay, allows the European targets to be kept in
terms of delays. A refined analysis is foreseen in order to better identify the delay
gains distribution.
• The results from CDM-BASE versus CDM-FUT saturation in German sectors reveals
how some expected saturated sectors are not actually saturated. It can be concluded
that if the declared capacities are maintained then some regulations may not be
required.
EUROCONTROL
Page No.31 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No. 09-08
7. NEXT STEPS
The results and conclusions obtained in this study suggest developing the following actions:
- Evaluate the benefits in terms of ATFM minutes delay (“ATFM delay” is defined as the
duration between the last Take-Off time requested by the aircraft operator and the Take-Off
slot given by the CFMU).
- Repeat the simulation for 20 CDM airports and obtain an approximate figure to quantify the
airports needed to detect benefits on the sectors declared capacity.
- Repeat the simulations taking into account timeliness (one of the key CDM characteristics).
It is proposed to consider the time reference ‘40 minutes before AOBT’ (about 50 min
before ATOT) according to the CFMU needed for decision making. The next figure
visualises the approach taken.
Figure 18: Timeliness effect
The figure shows how the data accuracy along the time follows different pattern for Airport CDM
and Non Airport CDM airports. The Non Airport CDM airports present a strong data accuracy
improvement some minutes before off-blocks. The Airport CDM airports follow a stepped pattern,
at every milestone achieved the data accuracy shows a relevant improvement.
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.32 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
Annex A: COCA Complexity
The EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (EEC) has developed a methodology to study the
complexity changes and impact under the COCA (Complexity and Capacity) project. COCA project
was launched by the EEC at the end of the year 2000. Its main objective is to describe the
relationship between capacity and complexity by means of accurate performance metrics.
Macroscopic Workload Formula (MWM):
MWM = wAC * nAC + wLC * nLC + w CNF * nCNF
Where: AC - nominates routine task
LC - nominates level change monitoring task
CNF - nominates conflict monitoring task
nAC, nLC, nCNF - are the numbers of occurrences for each elementary task
wAC, wLC, wCNF - are times necessaries for each of the elementary tasks
COCA methodology has found-out that, a sector is considered when the controllers Macroscopic
Workload reach 70% value.
As it is shown in the figure hereafter, in order to compute the sector capacity, the MWM regression
curve is identified and the crossing point with the 70% line is considered as the point when the
sector capacity is reached. In our example, 42 is the sector capacity.
EUROCONTROL
Page No.33 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No. 09-08
This objective is addressed in two ways:
• Identifying and evaluating factors that constitute and capture complexity in air traffic control;
• Validating and testing complexity factors and highlighting those linked with controller workload.
The three terms “complexity”, “capacity” and “workload” are highly linked. Sector capacity is not
just a function of the number of aircraft in a sector, it is also directly influenced by the interactions
between the aircraft: the greater the number of interactions, the higher the complexity. Simply put,
complexity drives controller workload, and workload limits capacity. Hence, there is a need to
understand what factors or circumstances make the controllers’ work more complex and cause an
increase in workload.
To gain a better understanding of the relationship between complexity, workload and capacity the
COCA project’s specific objectives are to:
• Analyse the concept of ATM complexity at macroscopic and microscopic levels to include elements such as route segments, airspace volumes, traffic flows, converging/crossing points, etc. at various levels (sector, centre or state);
• Provide relevant complexity indicators and capacity evaluators for specific complexity studies and other studies: ATFM, Airspace design, ATFM Performance and Efficiency, Economical studies for ATM, etc.
COCA project built an elaborated complexity toolbox named COCA Light Analyzer (COLA), and
performed several macroscopic studies, the results of which were validated by operational experts.
COCA methodology and COLA toolbox have been validated by several projects and the COCA
outputs are highly appreciated by users. It is the reason COCA have been undertaken in some
major European projects.
EUROCONTROL First CDM Network Impact Assessment
Page No.34 Airport CDM Project – EEC Note No.09-08
END OF THE DOCUMENT